You've missed a lot here. Spare parts, it shares a large part of the components with the most manufactured tank platform in the world, the T-54/55. Tracks, wheels, torsion bars, gearbox, engine upgraded from V-55 to V-55U or new engine share a large part of the parts T-55 engine. Exports of T-72 tanks from Russia after 1991 are almost non-existent and they can be counted on the fingers of one hand, so I do not know what anyone would sell, the whole thing with those T-62 in operation will be also the reason for a large stock of parts and ammunition compared to parts and 125mm ammunition consumed on the much more used T-72, T-80, T-90 in the last 40 years compared to the T-62/55, which in turn were not so much used. The Russians have problems with the people, not with the number of equipment, so I think they can easily send more tanks than the crews have as a backup, already tankers receive a replacement tank for their own destroyed or damaged, it looks like they are most often T-72B1 and given the photos of the transports, it will probably be the T-80BV as well. If you watch Oryx, you can see how much the T-72B's losses came out compared to the T-72B3 and M, which were documented as the highest losses in the first month of the war. Technical problems can really come, given that these are machines that last a long time and suddenly someone pulls them into operation, I see the biggest weakness in their ballistic computer and laser sight, a sensitive technique that is +35 years old and often possibly stored in humidity or winter. 3BM-21M, in some small quantities of newly produced Russian 115mm ammunition, has a penetration capacity of 480mm APF, is less than the last Soviet 3BM32 / 3BM42 125mm with 540 / 500mm, but more than ammunition produced until 1985, which will have Ukraine the largest numbers. Apparently Ukrainians do not use heavy equipment much and probably save the equipment, so the tank will meet the infantry just as often, if the Ukrainians do not want to make an offensive and the war will finally move to some greater intensity, where then there will be no problem finding a record where there would be more than 2- 3 pieces of destroyed equipment in one place. The protection of T-72B tanks with contact 5 is well known and is also on wikipedia, turet 800-1180mm hull 690-940mm APF-HEAT. The turret of T-62M's armor is as strong as the several hundred M84 / T-72M / 1 sent there. I don't understand the bullshit with the fact that tanks without a charger have some greater protection, if the projectile goes in, I don't care if the whole ammunition carried explodes, because I'm most likely dead anyway. The most used Ukrainian tanks T-64BV, has the front armor of the tower 420-450mm and hulls 265mm against APF, other most owned tanks T-72Ural, M84 / T-72A / T-72M1 with Contact 1 will reach similar levels. This means that the 3BM-21M with a penetration of 480mm is able to pierce them from the front, as well as probably the front of the hull of the most captured tanks, T-72B with contact 1, so it is probably able to frontally front most Ukrainian tanks. The last Soviet ammunition 3BM-36 115mm then frontally pierces the turet T-72M / M1 / M84 / Ural without Konakt 1 and maybe a hull with Contact 1 at T-72M / Ural / M84 and even the older ones should then pierce all Ukrainian tanks from side. Finally, the question of how and by whom the T-62 will be used. The Russian army has mobilization structures, people who have been engaged in military service are enrolled in the reserves on a voluntary basis, and they can then be called upon for large exercises, mostly with the technology they were serving. After the decommissioning of the T-62 in 2013, where one-year basic service soldiers were probably still used and not professional soldiers, they were reactivated to the largest post-Cold War military training Vostok 2018, where they were apparently assigned to the newly created reserves unit on former soldiers who served on the T -55/62. I have already seen a video from the reserve units, where the men were 35-55 years old in Ukraine, a few days back there was also a video where there was a column of T-62M and T-62MV with the Ossetian flag, information that volunteers from South Ossetia will come there, who are seeking to connect with North Ossetia in the Russian Federation, as well as volunteers from Abkhazia, have been leaking for some time, these two separatist territories operate with T-55 tanks and quite possibly there are volunteers who served on the T-55/62 in USSR, even in that video, the crew on the tanks looked quite old. It is still unclear whether their deployment should be at the front, or they will serve as backup units in the second line, or whether it is a cannonfodr in a wear war to maintain better machines and crews. From Oryx you can see how practically all the better tanks like the T-64 Bulat in various versions and the T-80 were used only in the first days of the war, as well as their best transporters BTR-3,4 and BMP-2, when they started deploy and lose T-64BV, BMP-1, BRTR-80 and better machines to save, the Russians see the same, T-80 and T-90 practically stopped appearing at the front, as well as T-72B3M, most began to grow T -72B, which is now documented the most lost, although the first half of the war was not so, but it can again mean a number of things,replacement of damaged / destroyed better tanks with T-72B for surviving crews, preferential deployment of T-72B in the wear war, where against Javelin does not matter what you deploy and T-72B can withstand what the Ukrainians shoot from tanks, or also that better tanks are for better units with better training and they will be destroyed less often, or all this together.
Fun fact reason why Poland is planning to replace Leopard 2 with K2 is because K2 need 3 men crew and that is huge , because Poland have limited men power , so havig 3000 men in 1000 tanks instead of 4000 make a diffrence .
A lot of sources mention that the Russian reserve tanks in storage are rather in a poor state and not readily operational. During the past years Russia has supplied T-62 tanks to Assad in Syria and Haftar in Libya. So I suspect that these T-62's may have been in a better shape than most tanks in storage because they were kept ready for possible delivery to Syria or Libya.
We have heard a lot of myths and legends about the Russian army lately. 90 days ago they were supposed to be out of missiles, 60 days ago out of tanks and planes, 30 days ago out of food and professional soldiers. And hearing from the same clueless fantasy world dwellers info about the condition of the Russian reserve stockpiles kinda makes me laugh.
Id like to point out that most of the tank combat in this war has been as fire support for and against infantry. In this role the much larger HE charge of the 125mm gun is very valuable. The 125mm HE-Frag has almost a 3rd more explosive filler and its 90% kill/incapacitate zone is almost twice as large. A T-72 can snap off ill aimed shots in the general vicinity of ATGM crews and have a resonable chance of killing them where as the T-62 has to get pretty close to kill or suppress them.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized the Tankograd site and the T-62 and T-72 field manuals. The 115mm HE round was about 2.7 kg of TNT and the 125mm HE rounds are 3.4kg of AIX2 which is more energetic. Some 115mm shells with AIX2 were produced but most of the effort in producing modern shell went towards calibers like 125mm and arty systems
HE filler size not exactly an issue as in general, the russian tanks atm are out of ATGM range (or at least Javelin 2.5km range), as well as this tanks being sent as inf support to Donetsk and Lugansk armies. LPR/DPR are better with a tank, than without, t62s also probably do not canibalize the t72 russian unit readiness/spares as much, rather than it being a "theft" issue.
Very good analysis. To the point of use: T-62 could be given to second grade units, like the separatists, or used as direct fire support for units, that won´t fight in the center of gravity. We know the ukranian forces can´t give all their units the best anti tank weapons. So in weaker areas of the front it might balance out.
Regarding corruption: Before the war, and early in the war there was several ebay sellers based in Belarus with Russian gen2 NVDs for sale, it could be seen on the photos of these devices that serial numbers had been visibly scratched off. These were almost certainly NVDs from the northern army's supply stocks or even the Belarussian stocks. I haven't checked recently, but they were still up for sale upwards of 7 weeks into the war.
Before the war, Ukraine was reported by western main sewer media as being among the most corrupt countries in the world. I'm sure that this has only gotten worse as the UkroNazi military collapses with the regime soon to follow and the rats seek lifelines into the welcoming arms of the EU, who deserve to host these vermin.
@@MrPojopojo If the Russian and Ukrainian armies truly didn't need tanks they would have stopped using them LONG ago. But from what we see tanks are still extremely important for offensives and counter offensives.
@@Frenchfrys17 they aren't useless, but the days of using them as a main strike force are long gone, they are helpless without infantry, artillery, even air support at this point. One guy with a tube can take them out without even keeping on target.
@@fotina45 Explain how this affects what I said at all. What is the difference other than one side not having many modern armored anymore thus reducing their effectiveness even further.
As a contrarian argument, parts for a rare but indispensable vehicle might command a higher premium while parts from an older vehicle would be less likely to be missed if they "walked off" than parts from the current front line tank. Put another way, the risk involved in stealing T62 parts is probably much lower while the smaller population of buyers would still pay a premium due to desperation (i.e. the armies using T62s are doing so because they simply can't afford to upgrade, so their options are pay a premium for parts of cannibalize their few tanks).
@@alexnderrrthewoke4479 Try reading that again. He's talking about supplies of parts on the international black market. There is no mention of the tactical deployment of the T-62 in Ukraine.
I was thinking the same. Not that we can prove it either way, but a chunk of the video seemed to just make a guess and then treat it as fact when this argument could also be true. In fact, another possibility is that many of the T-62s in storage were stripped for parts to make use the ones delivered to Syria recently were in top shape and had a good supply of spares.
@@r.gilman4261 both systems use composite appliqué with a rubber or similar elastic material to produce a shattering effect in the projectile, so, I’d say they are similar. And far more comparative than Chobham which is and entirely different system.
@@nickbrenchley5430 The Rubber in the Stillbrew package is elastic, but this has nothing to do with how it works as the rubber is tightly confined (this is not a NERA package). Polyurethane resin is not elastic as used in BDD. The mechnisim for BDD to defeat HEAT is by having the urethane resin flow into the Jet thereby disrupting it. Therefore both protection schemes (BDD and Stillbrew) work differently.
It's worth adding here that even by the mid 80s, the Soviets STILL employed a very large number of T-62's in opposition to the US forces in the Fulda Gap region, while they had begun to be replaced in frontline units by T-64's, the T-62 still remained by far the most numerous tank in opposition to US forces. As a result of this most of the new generation of Main Battle Tanks beginning to be fielded by NATO (Leopard 2, M1 Abrams, Challenger, etc.) were built around countering the T-62 with their various levels of protection. For example the US M1 Abrams protection was intended to protect against the CIA's best estimates for the 3BM9 APFSDS ammunition used by the T-62 (Values that we know in hindsight were far off the mark). The fact that the newest generation of NATO MBT's were initially specifically designed around overmatching T-62 rather than the far more dangerous T-64 speaks a lot to how serious of a threat the T-62 was considered to be at that time.
This is true. When I was deployed to Germany in the 80s, we expected to fight mostly T-62s. We also trained to fight against T-72s but didn't expect many T-64s. I think by that time we knew that the T-64 was not going to be produced in significant numbers.
What were the CIA values for the rounds, and in what way were they off the mark (did they think the round was worse or better than its real performance)?
Greetings from Hungary! As somebody already pointed it out, the main gun of the T-54 and T-55 is called D-10TS,not D-IOTS. It started it's career as the D-10S on the SU-100, then they put it into the T-44 and T-54, as the D-10T. From this point, the design bureaus made various improvements on these guns. A Hungarian Armour Enthusiast
Currently it appear that T-62M's have been sent to DPR and LPR forces. So not to front line Russian units, as a decent enough vehicle for rear echelon and fire support its perfectly adequate. Most informative as always Bernhard.
And those t-62m seems to be given to mobilized reservist of dpr and lpr army, which at the beginning they many have mosin and van as main weapons and vehicles
@@Carewolf What cannon fodder when there's not much active head to head combat is going on? Most of war right now are artillery duels, and LDPR conscripts definitely aren't ones who can operate them.
There is a thing that one should keep in mind when it comes to maintenance: The first ones to do maintenance are the crew men themself. Having one man more makes that easier in the field or they can do a more proper job in the same amount of time.
Excellent analysis Bernard! And it is based upon data from credible sources. I wouldn't be surprised if analysts from various countries are double-checking your info and coming to the same conclusions.
but why is the real reason, Russia is no where near running out of T72/80/90 variants.. They've lost only a tiny fraction of the first one technically. Something tells me a lot more d!ckwagging dances with nato on the Baltic, which means building a gigantic ball of potent armour among other things there, while the T62s are fine for the now more or less wrung out Ukrainian forces.
@@anasevi9456 I believe he explained it earlier in the video, while Russia has a lot of t-72 tanks many of them have been sitting in storage which left them exposed to corrupt members of the military who stripped important parts from them to sell to other countries for a profit. Since not many countries use the T-62 anymore their parts arent as valuable to sell which means the T-62's that have been put in storage are mostly operational which would allow Russia to quickly deploy them to fill in gaps in Russian or Speratist armored forces in Ukraine
@@pell9538 🤐 fair point, i just didnt realise why such an old tank would be taken out of mothballs. I don't thrust the usual suspects on either side, and your comment about corruption is prob half true, but your comment about why a T-62 is getting a second life is likely on the mark. I just know our leaders are going through the motions like a bunch of headless roosters.
@@anasevi9456 Tanks are expensive to operate. Russia's prewar operational tank fleet was about 2800 machines in total. They sent 2100 of these into Ukraine, of which we have photographic evidence of the loss of 789 machines now. The majority of these are T-72. They don't have many T-90 of any type in inventory and exceptionally few have even been spotted in Ukraine. The Indian army operates vastly more T-90s than the Russian army does. They don't seem to have many T-80s either, despite allegedly vast production quantities that should have allowed them to easily replace all T-72s in service. The Ukrainians don't seem very "wrung out" seeing as they're still pushing Russian forces back slowly and have managed to continue to blunt all efforts at serious assaults to regain ground. I think they may have trouble regaining their Pre-2014 boarders as Crimea is historically difficult to assault from any direction, but I see no reason they'd fail to regain their pre-2022 boarders at this point, outside of some kind of dramatic and severe screw up, or the Russians suddenly finding very competent commanders now that most of the dumb ones are dead.
The fact that T62 parts would be less likely stolen might be the critical one and explain why we see these ancient machines on the modern battlefield. The biggest downside I would note are the non-existent gun targeting tech, these tanks are barely advanced then their WW2 counter parts.
T-62 are modernized and have digital gun stabilization, ballistic computer, night vision, additional ERA armor. You need really modern staff to fight against them.
@@peceed Dude, there is no single piece you could call "digital" in this tank. I think they have manual input of the ballistic data for which there could be some prehistoric calculator. It does not act any remotely close to the digital FCSs like the pieces used in the third-generation tanks. The sole reason Soviets and Russians keep it around is you can fix it with a hammer and a prybar.
One thing overlooked is the logistics of supplying the 115 MM shells for the T62. Now you have to haul another shell that as far as I know is not compatible with any other tank being used in the field.
These are not even the 125mm used in several variants, lengths according to different types of charging machines, which are then able to shoot longer to charge the original cannon or then a new type of cannon.
On the other hand you get the opportunity to use the stockpile of 115mm shells that no other russian tank fires. A stockpile that is probably nearing expiration date so the moment to use it is now.
@@stoyantodorov2133 judging by the artillery volume and fires that Russia is currently using against the Ukrainians, unguided munitions are not the problem. It’s the act of moving munitions to the front that is Russia’s issue.
@@Flamechr Which specifically? You mean the tracks, the wheels, the torsion bars, the gear box that shares with the most manufactured tank platform on the planet T-55? The T-62 then uses either a modernized or new engine, which also shares a large part of the component base of the T-55 engine, as well as ammunition, when a more modern version was introduced sometime around 2000, so there will probably be more parts than on the T-72 , T-80, T-90, which have been used much more intensively in the last 40 years, as well as ammunition.In the videos you can see how the Ukrainians are pulling types of ammunition from Russian tanks, which ceased to be produced in the 1980s, so even with the 125 mm they still evidently did not fully shoot into the post-USSR types produced.
Nice and informative. Thanks Bernhardt. As to its use, we will have to wait and see. I would imagine it would be useful in the infantry support role. And an additional crewman does not hurt either if the tankers finally go heads up verses closed up as their doctrine dictates. Ammunition wise, the Russians hardly ever throw anything away. But they also have storage issues re: the abandoned munitions dumps when GSFG left East Germany. Flooded bunkers and such. Thanks
The gun dispersion difference between the old 115 mm gun and the newer 125 is significant. The smaller caliber has ~ 0.35-0.40 mil, while the mid 80 125 mm has 0.25-0.27 mil.
@@LooWa01 Yes, but I have to dig up. There was a long debate on a HUN forum many things. While I have a model to calculate idealized cases. This is the output of the Pk calculation compared with a US TRADOC stuff about T-62 and a firing range data of the Chieftain tank. TRADOC, you can find the S shaped curve about T-62. My calculation with two different dispersion values. i.imgur.com/OavsDQM.png I used the method to estimate the mil CEP value of many tanks. For the Chally 1 I got ~0.23 mil. Based on such data like this. i.imgur.com/CGSFSQj.png The model calculating the Pk uses a circle size target to determine the hit / miss. i.imgur.com/Bcl3nRC.png There is a visualization way which needs manual calculation but it works quite well. Visual representation of 10x100 shots with 0.25 mil at 2000 meters with 0 aiming error. i.imgur.com/a7JiAVh.png I have also data about the early M60 era, dispersion was ~0.40 mil.
Where are you getting these figures from? I have seen a test from the Slovakian army, specifically about the need to accurize the 2A46, that states the 2A46 has a 1.8 mil dispersion (or technically 0.9 mil to the right) because of the way the breech is mounted causing the entire gun to shift down and right during firing. It is only capable of putting 14% of shots within a 0.5mil circle (this is with BM15).
@@jimmydesouza4375 0.50 mil radius = 1 m radius at 2000 m distance If I set may calculator to get in average 14 hits this circle we get this. From 5x100 shots. The average is close to 14%. i.imgur.com/BB8uQv6.png I guess there is some kind of misinterpretation regarding what means dispersion. In most case dispersion is CEP but guns have double normal (Rayleigh) distribution. This means that the total area of the dispersion is the same with normal distr. but inside the totaly area the distribution is different along the radius. Pls. show me that test to help to understand what it contains exactly.
Also, on some pictures, we can see T-62Ms have Relikt fitted on the sides rather than Kontakt-1. Anyway, T-62M will (probably) not serve on the front lines, but deployed with pro-Russian separatists and rear echelon units. Most likely will be used as an armored car against Ukrainian resistance fighters.
Can your UAV do dog-fight? Hardly, but it will be a significant boost against ground units that have no UAV. I believe previous discussion have already concluded that such grandpa tanks are for fire support. They are not for battle of the Kursk, but fire support against units that have no guns. Better than BMP, easy to maintain, big guns, lots of ammo, better than wheel based vehicle in the field i.e. Stryker and Technical. Who is complaining?
Would be interesting to see any combat use of the main gun fired missiles. It seems like one of those good idea fairy things, that sounds good on paper but has limited niche uses to being possibly just above worthless. I have never seen any data on their use or doctrine so that would be super interesting as I am happy to be wrong.
Soviet doctrine involved the tanks forming a base of fire for other formations performing thier roles (ie infantry crossing rivers). The ATGM was to provide standoff to do this. That's also part of why they stuck ATGMs on as much as possible as by and large only a small portion of your force is able to take part in an action so you want the rest of it able to fire. Good luck finding info on it now :D.
@@jimmydesouza4375 that at least make some sense, I wondered how much defending against attack helicopters played into it. Do you have a copy of the doctrine, got a budy who can translate Russian so doesn't need to be in English
@@grumpyguardsman6161 There's an old British Army intel officer (username combatintman) who makes custom scenarios for games like Combat Mission and I saw it from one of them. May be wrong (and the guy may be lying about who he is), but it fits. It's something I saw said by him. So no source. It's why I said good luck finding info. With all the Ukraine stuff it drowns everything else out :D
Would be worth comparing worst vs. worst from both sides. Polish-supplied T-72M and T-72M1 had way worse armor than T-72B (T-72M is equivalent to T-72 Ural and T-72M1 is a little weaker T-72A). T-62M, as you mentioned, possess digitalized FCS, more modern gun stabilization system and IR vision while Those T-72M/M1 still rely on analog (manual) FCS, worse stabilization and simple NV system. TBH for T-62 it is "now or never", lowest gens of MBTs of Western European countries are being sent to Ukraine, after this conflict T-62s could maybe only be sold to some African or middle-eastern countries. I assume this may be the last war they can find matching enemies. Plus this way Russians for sure want to solve problem of scarce spare parts and ammo.
i believe polish supplied t-72m1s had upgrades to commander and gunner sights, modernized fcs, modernized digital communications, military gbs etc although if i remember correctly like 75% of the polish supplied t72s had those upgrades
@@Orcawhale1 ahh, you re right, I've digged it and it turns out there was some upgrade - newer observation devices, digital comms and digital engine starting system. That still not includes FCS or gun stabilisation.
I'd like to point out that, the T62 in 2008 war only saw minor use, just a handful of T-62s were used. The Breakaway regions of Georgia still have T55s in active use.
Well in regard to modified vehicles, the T55 is probably more capable then the T62. Since the more widespread T55 was extensively modified by multiple countries until the 2000s. I mean there are T55s with 105mm Rheinmetall guns, modern Western Electronics and Turbo Diesels.
I would like to entertain the thought that the same kind of modifications most likely would have been made if the respective nations would have procured with the T-62 instead of the T-55.
Tobias, I like your vids, good calm presentation :-) I just want to point out one thing: I read about T-62 on some webpages and one interesting snippet is that it still had cased shells for main gun - like T-55. This is actually a large advantage in terms of these notorious ammo explosions - cased shell may not explode if just "licked" by some hot fragment, while caseless, like in T-72 - much more easily. Another advantage in this regard is that you should be able to keep cased shells in water, which seems to be impossible in the autoloader of T-72. Shells kept in water containers should not explode even if penetrated by molten metal jet - the powder will start burning but water will flood it immediately, am I right? So T-62s are very likely to be less prone to these fatal explosions which always kill entire crew. And one more remark: greater height of T-62 may afford it a bigger gun depression angle, and this, as we all know, is great for firing from hull-down position - a better tank in the defensive role.
it's not that T-62 is terrible. Terrible (for Russia) is the fact that by the end of 4th months of a 3-day war, it is forced to un-mothball Cold War relics to replace a previously huge fleet of T-72s, T-80s and even T-90s that were lost during the conflict. Imagine US invading Iraq in 2003, failing on the way to Baghdad and bringing old M60s and M48 to replace burned out Abramses
800 tanks lost, according to Oryx. Fully documented. From about 2500 the Russian had at the start of the war. Probably more lost in reality as not all of them have been documented.
The Institute for the Study of War (ISW) had a comment several weeks back when the T-62s were being deployed. They said there was a statement (possibly from Ukrainian intelligence; I forget the source now) that the T-62s would mostly be used in "fixed positions". Exactly what this meant was unclear, but the thought was that they might be used as town defenses or the like.
An important detail that you left out is that these T-62Ms are being used exclusively by LPR and DPR militias and NOT Russian soldiers. The only two shipments we can confirm that included T-62M s were both destined for the breakaway regions and not the Russian regulars' positions and they also both included some amount of T-80BVs. This means that those T-62Ms could likely be trainers, artillery vehicles, or tanks for poorly trained conscripts, while the veteran tank crews receive the T-80BVs.
Since we already have video of one T62 getting hit and possibly destroyed they are definitely used on the frontlines, most likely Donbas since the Russians are throwing the separatists in there like chaff to try and grind down the Ukrainians.
They're not being given to "poorly trained conscripts". They're being given to reservist volunteers, or whatever term you want to use, who trained on the T-62M many years ago. Plonk one in front of them, give them a few hours to refresh their memories, and you have a fully operational and crewed MBT.
@@Crosshair84 Yeah, we've all seen the quality of Russian and bandit fiefdom tankers over the last few months. Poorly trained is a level only reached by their exceptional units, the rest is worse.
Crew number might actually be important, heard a phone call where a guy complained about lack of tankers, and how they are using T-72's with just 2 crew
If the T-62s are going to the separatists, that's less of a concern. Just grab four random dudes off the street, and you have a tank crew. (Not a very good one, but they're just there to soak up a Javelin that might have blown up a T-90 instead...)
T-62 shell storage is still on the floor, making it catastrophically vulnerable to mines and top attacks. In other words, it still has the famous Popov Mechanism, designed by famed tank designer Ivanna Popov.
Every tank is quite vulnerable if you consider HE ammo detonation - nothing can save you. Even Abrams can't withstand that. And in Abrams armored ammo door is open 1/3 of time during shooting or more.
@@peceed there’s legit been footage of an iraqi m1 abrams which are older less advanced than U.S m1 take a direct hit after firing, with the blow out panels exploding, and the iraqi tank crew survived and got out of their disabled tank
@@peceed I think that’s mostly because U.S tanks dont really have dedicated anti personnel HE shells, just apfsds, heat, and canister shot if i remember correctly
Father served on ussr base in Hungary as the tank gunner in the 80s. He rode T-62, T-64 and T-72. He says T-64 is the best of them in terms or real life performance and comfort in tank (if there can be a "comfort"). And about the T-62 vs AT weaponry......... On the paper the performance can be almost similar, but T-90 was not enough, so why you hope this one will do? Aiming crappier, stabilization sh@tty, survivability of tank was doubted even in 80s. Anyhow, RPG-7, RPG-22, TOW, JAVELIN, NLAW and everything else do make holes in T-72 / T-90, so survivability of T-62 is doubtful, much doubtful, but if it can shoot, then it's a target.
@@Frenchfrys17 dad was a gunner on all 3 and that's his opinion. considering the tank crew average height was 1.68 (not a joke), it was not so bad. I myself was in the actual t-72 only once (we needed to check if damaged t-72 left in the field contained anything useful - only useful thing was booby-trapped so we had to left it there) and it was crammed for me with my 1.79, but he said it was pretty much ok, but not a nice drive. in 2014 he was pretty interested in ongoing fights as, believe it or not, like my father told me, out t-64 had a lot of 1v1 and 1v2 victories over t-72's, but for me it's crew mastership, which made the difference.
@@pointofinterest9084 Well from a technical perspective if you compare the T-64BV to a T-72B3, the T-72 has: Better armor, better armor integrity, more vital armor coverage, less weakspots Better engine, more mobility, higher top speed, more reliable engine Better fire control system, better at shooting targets on the move, better at spotting targets, Thermals, the T-64BV doesnt have any Lower profile ammo rack, less likely to explode Multiple instances of them wiping out entire platoons of Ukrainian T-64BV's to near extninction. any many more.
@@Frenchfrys17 I'm not comparing digits vs digits. it's cool for the brain training, but not when you are in actual deep sh@t. for what I can tell you T-72 burns. T-90 burns. T-62 will burn. t-64 is not near extinction, but the problems with maintenance are big as yes, we have a lot of damaged tanks, that ready to return to the combat, but now we even rarely see russians: 90% of all combat is artillery vs artillery. what my pals say is that when they liberated a village - they saw the t-72 in range of 500m in the first time for a month - and it was left behind after mine hit it and apparently damaged the turret rotation mechanism. and that's it. p.s. when there were "multiple instances of russian t72 wiping them out in the combat" can you enlighten me? I just love people, who really enjoy stats))
@@pointofinterest9084 The main thing I am trying to mention was how poorly the T-64BV’s performed during the initial formation of the separatist republics several years ago. Most of the sources and videos of them getting destroyed are from Russian sources, as a disclaimer. But to clarify, most of them were from RPG’s instead of other tanks. Tank on tank combat is extremely rare. Speaking of which, I am baffled by the utter lack of an Air Force present to break the artillery stalemate. What happened to all the Baraktars, MiG-29’s, Su-25’s, and Mi-24’s? They seem completely absent from the war now even though my own logic would think that they would be extremely useful for picking of artillery targets.
T-62 are perfect for second-line and training units, which is exactly what they are used for. As for the Georgian War, T-62 did manage to score kills against Georgian T-72 tanks. From what i understand, a Russian unit grabbed everything that was combat capable, including the training T-62 when it got called into action in Georgia.
@@grimwaltzman The basics are the same. If recruits kill a T-62 in training, its not much of a hit for the inventory of the unit as a loss of a T-72 would be. In any case, from interviews of the T-62 crews, they are a mix of Russian volunteers and "rebels". Tanks are not used in direct assaults, but as beefed up anti-insurgency police force or as mobile poor-mans artillery.
@@victorzvyagintsev1325 even if we assume that driver and commander preform similar tasks in both 62 and 72, what do they them do with the loader after training is complete? Do the gunners have to re-learn from 62 to 72 on the fly? I mean, I don't mind them shooting themselves in the foot with a system like that, but I doubt they are that retarded. Also apparently the 62s do make it close enough to the front to have a commercial drone drop a grenade inside a driver's hatch, so there's that.
@@grimwaltzman There are 3 MBT in service in the army(72,80,90) plus reserve or new 62, 64, 55, 14....crews have to know how to operate any of the type AND how to operate in any role(at least know how to do it). Think of T-62 as entry level airplane like L-39, used before being authorised to fly an Su-30
Thank you for the video. I have some catching up to do. A big engine drinks more diesel than a small engine so has a shorter range and is more demanding on logistics. [litres/hp being equal] English Numbers: 3 is not "free" but more like "throw" with an E. Difference is the same between "tank" and "thank". 115 sounds like 150. Make sure your EE in -teen numbers is longer to clarify the difference. EG Fifteen more like fifteeeen. Just a small point but it makes a difference.
@@Rokaize Putin directly said western and captured weapons to separaratist, you have also couple of videos when they where giving to them or when is Z/V marking on Ukraine vehicles, so not.
T-62 was a cheap expedient to get the 115mm gun into service and buy time for the T-64 (which was originally also going to have the 115mm) to work out the teething issues on its more advanced innovations. Warsaw Pact states obviously took one look at what was basically a stretch T-55 and asked, "are we really going to buy a whole new tank that's basically the same as our T-55s just for this gun?", the answer was no. They ended up being vindicated by the emergence of the T-72 and new sabot rounds for the rifled 100mm that basically made the T-62s 115mm redundant.
So the first tank mass produced with a Smoothbore gun is not revolutionary? Essentially every mbt after, barring the Chieftain, had it. That seems pretty revolutionary to me.
They just stretched a T-55 hull and put a new gun in it, compare that with the T-64 which was a purpose built machine with its composite armour, autoloader etc.
@@ausaskar That’s irrelevant. T62 was still the first tank mass produced with a smoothbore gun. This set the foundation for almost all mbts after. Another word for revolutionary is trailblazing. A tank setting a new standard for main guns is trailblazing. T64 was revolutionary too, but in that circumstance it was due to the composite armor which it utilized. The first tank mass produced with such armor.
@@ausaskar It’s like saying the SVT-40 can’t be revolutionary because it’s based on the SVT-38. Or like saying the M1 Garand wasn’t revolutionary because the Garand m1926 came first. It was the SVT-40 the Germans copied. It was the SVT-40 that inspired some nations to adopt semi-auto main battle rifles. Same goes for the M1 Garand. Many nations copied the concept, and saw an implementation of a tactic which might otherwise not occur, or be greatly delayed. I know that the Mondragon was technically the first auto-loading main service rifle, but it’s impact was far more limited compared to later semi-autos. It took far more exposure to get the concept accepted. Very different from the M1 Garand, SVT-40, or back to the main subject, the T62.
You've missed a lot here. Spare parts, it shares a large part of the components with the most manufactured tank platform in the world, the T-54/55. Tracks, wheels, torsion bars, gearbox, engine upgraded from V-55 to V-55U or new engine share a large part of the parts T-55 engine. Exports of T-72 tanks from Russia after 1991 are almost non-existent and they can be counted on the fingers of one hand, so I do not know what anyone would sell, the whole thing with those T-62 in operation will be also the reason for a large stock of parts and ammunition compared to parts and 125mm ammunition consumed on the much more used T-72, T-80, T-90 in the last 40 years compared to the T-62/55, which in turn were not so much used. The Russians have problems with the people, not with the number of equipment, so I think they can easily send more tanks than the crews have as a backup, already tankers receive a replacement tank for their own destroyed or damaged, it looks like they are most often T-72B1 and given the photos of the transports, it will probably be the T-80BV as well. If you watch Oryx, you can see how much the T-72B's losses came out compared to the T-72B3 and M, which were documented as the highest losses in the first month of the war. Technical problems can really come, given that these are machines that last a long time and suddenly someone pulls them into operation, I see the biggest weakness in their ballistic computer and laser sight, a sensitive technique that is +35 years old and often possibly stored in humidity or winter. 3BM-21M, in some small quantities of newly produced Russian 115mm ammunition, has a penetration capacity of 480mm APF, is less than the last Soviet 3BM32 / 3BM42 125mm with 540 / 500mm, but more than ammunition produced until 1985, which will have Ukraine the largest numbers. Apparently Ukrainians do not use heavy equipment much and probably save the equipment, so the tank will meet the infantry just as often, if the Ukrainians do not want to make an offensive and the war will finally move to some greater intensity, where then there will be no problem finding a record where there would be more than 2- 3 pieces of destroyed equipment in one place. The protection of T-72B tanks with contact 5 is well known and is also on wikipedia, turet 800-1180mm hull 690-940mm APF-HEAT. The turret of T-62M's armor is as strong as the several hundred M84 / T-72M / 1 sent there. I don't understand the bullshit with the fact that tanks without a charger have some greater protection, if the projectile goes in, I don't care if the whole ammunition carried explodes, because I'm most likely dead anyway. The most used Ukrainian tanks T-64BV, has the front armor of the tower 420-450mm and hulls 265mm against APF, other most owned tanks T-72Ural, M84 / T-72A / T-72M1 with Contact 1 will reach similar levels. This means that the 3BM-21M with a penetration of 480mm is able to pierce them from the front, as well as probably the front of the hull of the most captured tanks, T-72B with contact 1, so it is probably able to frontally front most Ukrainian tanks. The last Soviet ammunition 3BM-36 115mm then frontally pierces the turet T-72M / M1 / M84 / Ural without Konakt 1 and maybe a hull with Contact 1 at T-72M / Ural / M84 and even the older ones should then pierce all Ukrainian tanks from side. Finally, the question of how and by whom the T-62 will be used. The Russian army has mobilization structures, people who have been engaged in military service are enrolled in the reserves on a voluntary basis, and they can then be called upon for large exercises, mostly with the technology they were serving. After the decommissioning of the T-62 in 2013, where one-year basic service soldiers were probably still used and not professional soldiers, they were reactivated to the largest post-Cold War military training Vostok 2018, where they were apparently assigned to the newly created reserves unit on former soldiers who served on the T -55/62. I have already seen a video from the reserve units, where the men were 35-55 years old in Ukraine, a few days back there was also a video where there was a column of T-62M and T-62MV with the Ossetian flag, information that volunteers from South Ossetia will come there, who are seeking to connect with North Ossetia in the Russian Federation, as well as volunteers from Abkhazia, have been leaking for some time, these two separatist territories operate with T-55 tanks and quite possibly there are volunteers who served on the T-55/62 in USSR, even in that video, the crew on the tanks looked quite old. It is still unclear whether their deployment should be at the front, or they will serve as backup units in the second line, or whether it is a cannonfodr in a wear war to maintain better machines and crews. From Oryx you can see how practically all the better tanks like the T-64 Bulat in various versions and the T-80 were used only in the first days of the war, as well as their best transporters BTR-3,4 and BMP-2, when they started deploy and lose T-64BV, BMP-1, BRTR-80 and better machines to save, the Russians see the same, T-80 and T-90 practically stopped appearing at the front, as well as T-72B3M, most began to grow T -72B, which is now documented the most lost, although the first half of the war was not so, but it can again mean a number of things,replacement of damaged / destroyed better tanks with T-72B for surviving crews, preferential deployment of T-72B in the wear war, where against Javelin does not matter what you deploy and T-72B can withstand what the Ukrainians shoot from tanks, or also that better tanks are for better units with better training and they will be destroyed less often, or all this together.
Love your work, hope you're not offended by occasional pronunciation help. Applique is a French loan word - aah-pli-KAY. Slight emphasis on the middle syllable. Glad you're covering Ukraine, we all have many, MANY questions.
Perun has a lot of good video about corruption in the russian coruption.it is very good Most of the T62 in storage had either bad maintenance or had most of the copper stripped out and sold by soldiers
just to clarify, that was an example of what cud have been done by russian soldiers/officers with responsibility of the deep storages. We don't have evidence, just satellite photos of brown, dismantled tanks of various kind
That is why it went from 12000 to only 900 in mothball. The 900 mothball tank should be good for use, as they have many old tanks to serve as parts, and these old tanks are all mechanical, no computer that need to service Of course Perun is right that they would be poorly maintained. So much maintenance will be needed to bring it to battlefield and even more maintenance AT the battlefield, actual fighting time will be small
@@simoc24 Perun's "expertise" is limited to Call of Duty and parroting the MSM. No offence, but he had to stick to the PC games instead of analyzing matter he have no idea of.
What I'm really curious about is how Russia is going to man these tanks. They're not equipped with an auto-loader, thus they need to train their tank crews in loading the guns, they can't just be sent out as is. This also means, they'll need more men per tank, per platoon, per company, per etc. Which in turn means if the tank is lost, that's more losses in personnel.
Well its assumed they will go on the front. More likely they will be given to the republics and used further back. However they might be preparing the long haul.
They're manning them with older reservist volunteers who trained on them decades ago. That's why they are using T-62Ms in the first place, it's what the available crews know. Plonk one in front of them, give them a few hours to refresh their memories and practice things, and you now have a crewed and operational MBT.
It's also good to remember that another cause for the corruption with t72 engines was the fact that it has been widely used in industry, hospitals etc as emergency power generators. Thus spares were always invaluable and the army could easily provide them for some bottles of vodka.
Headroom is not an issue with the red tanks in Ukraine. I've seen their turrets damn near reach the stratosphere as they pop like soda cans hit by a 12g slug.
Lower height also impacts the amount of gun depression as the gun breech can’t be raised due to the turret roof. Not an issue for a tank designed primarily for offensive operations, but does reduce the ability for defensive operations (limited opportunities to go hull down etc,).
@@peceed - You're a clown show! You replied to me earlier that in Europe Russian tanks don't need to fire in defilade. Now you're saying that Russian tanks are great for fighting in defilade despite the fact that their shallow turrets have limited gun depression. So which is it Napolean?
@@rogerpennel1798 You have to be more specific, dear Sherlock. "in defilade" is imprecise term and you shouldn't use it. Gun depression supports "dynamic" hull-down tactic. Russian tanks can be "statically" entrenched, they have built-in plowshares.
it would also blow the breach and probably kill everyone inside. But if it was designed with this in mind then sure, why not. Length of barrel is a compromise of range vs flexibility
If barrel length is the same relative to the calibre, I would argue the 125 mm cannon would still perform better than the 115 mm. Though, overall in my opinion, it seems like an awkward thing to pick out for comparison, since the weapons aren't exactly the same. To me, it appears to be more nit-picky and pedantic than an actually useful metric, since the issue of barrel length would probably have to be urban fighting and how the barrel interacts with the terrain. Though, most of the time that is a consideration thrown out of the window when designing an AFV, because other capabilities tend to be much more critical.
T 62 is perfect on problematic, guerilla heavy occupied territories. Not likely to be thrown into direct combat, but against occasional partisan unit... well, it is still a tank and I do not think that partisans will likely sport Javelins. Old RPGs at best. Plus, it will free more modern units from antipartisan warefare, so they can be thrown at front.
What partisans? There are none to be seen. The main opponent is Ukrainian national guard that has no tanks and few javelins in light infantry role. Solution to defend against these guys for out numbered DPR forces was to simply add tank company to each BTG. How would UA light infantry attack enemy infantry supported by artillery and tanks????
In this conflict partisans would likely be sporting NLAWs. Oddly its lack of autoloader would help crew survivability as the tank is less likely to brew up at least.
@@MrEddieLomax from what I heard, frontline units at Luhansk are complaining that they do not have modern AT rockets, that only elites up Charkov and Kyjiv have them. This might have been remedied, but I find it unlikely that partisans will have advanced western equipment. Old soviet era stuff nicked from warehouses or at best some more modern stuff stolen from Russians. Logistics of guerilla warfare is a nightmare and supplying or resupplying them behind enemy lines is a luxury Ukraine just cannot afford right now.
Another benefit of the T-62, is that when it is penetrated, it's ammo is spread around the tank, not just clustered in the carousel, so there is a lower chance of catastrophic cook off, which makes it more survivable for crew. And since even the most armoured Russian tanks can still be penned from the side, rear, and most importantly in this war, the top armour, the next best thing is survivability of the crew, since trained crews are more valuable than tanks (and said crews can also become more experienced). It reminds me a little of the M4 Sherman in WW2. Contrary to some reports, most crews survived when the tank was penned, and were able to get out. It also was mainly used as infantry support, like the T-62 appears to be, and infantry don't really care about tank stats as long it can blast entrenched positions, and while the T-62 gun on paper can't do that as well as a T-72, it's still a good enough gun for the job. Oh, and of course both the M4 and T-62 were massively mass produced, so even when 1 is killed, 10 more could take their place.
@@Ivzu If they have batteries and are used properly. As a support weapon T62 is pretty good, just dont use it in first line aggressively. I think Ukraine would be happy to have a few hundreds of these right now.
@@Ivzu yes but they are all capable of taking out a t90m as well, and both of them are effective as direct fire support for infantry for security in rear areas and convoys etc or defensively on quiet areas of the front line. Not every ukranian even has a javelin and not everything a tank shoots at is a tank.
The T62 may not be a modern tank, but if you have a tank and your opponent does not, or does not have AT weaponry at hand, you are in a much better place than your opponent. The T62 would fit the role as an Assault Gun perfectly, most Ukrainian armour is either being held in reserve or destroyed. If Russian forces can trap the Ukrainian army in Severodonetsk and the surrounding areas and prevent re supply the value of the T62 increases. Also being a Russian tank I’m sure that they have millions of rounds stored away either to be sold or used in combat.
That is the problem for the T62 which got its latest update in 1980 is against AT4 Nlaw javalin and carl gustav and Law. These at weapons can easily destroy the T62. Besides that javalin out range the T62
For those who don't know, Russia is not sending T-62s to Ukraine for Russian soldiers. They're sending them for Ukrainian separatists in the DPR and LPR who are more familiar with older tank designs that were used by Ukraine before the civil war. DPR and LPR forces comprise a significant amount of the forces on the ground. Some of these tanks are heading to Kharkov to equip the LPR forces there. Ukrainian forces had a successful counter offensive there because the forces defending there were mainly LPR conscripts. They have years of experience in the Ukrainian civil war, but have little heavy equipment. These tanks are better than none for them.
If the Russians are arming separatists with Moisin-Nagant rifles I doubt Russia will dedicate much to their maintenance. So if the separatists can't maintain them they will become more donor vehicles towed away by Ukrainian farmers.
Frontally would resist even from point blank range. Side turret would resist even from point blank range. Turret rear would resist from say 500m or more. May penetrate point blank range. Hull side 30mm would penetrate from point blank range, maybe at 500m Overall, very well protected from APCs and IFVs with auto cannot around 30mm.
I’m beginning to understand that many of the Soviet/Russian tanks are decent but that the tankers that used them were poorly trained and unmotivated. No armoured vehicle would stand up under these circumstances.
@@Fjodor.Tabularasa I've seen the tanks being serviced. You can only try and media gas light so much. Who am I gonna believe; some shill in RU-vid comments or my own eyes?
@@MaskofAgamemnon so you were in the Russian army and have first hand experience? I think not. Your just another nobody that parrots the Western propaganda claims. You Sir, know nothing, and that's fine by me, cheers.
Since the T-72 is completely vulnerable to Javelins and NLAWs, a crew may just as well be in a T-62, or a cardboard box. However, now the real issue is how well it can engage a Ukrainian T-72 (poorly, I'm sure), and how well it can stand up to everything between an RPG-7 and any other ATGM below an NLAW, along with surviving near hits from artillery. The question then doesn't become what can it survive, but what can it be used for? Will Ukraine be deploying troops in BMPs and BTRs when they've proved to be so vulnerable?
From my understanding according to U.S 'news' reported combat data (real reliable I know) the main cause of death for Russian tankers has been as a result of anti-tank weapons hitting the autoloader, so that might be the actual reason their bringing these out, to try and get around this issue.
@@Heartrose7 The autolader is not the main cause, but the loose ammo for n the turret which is responsible for most cookoffs, but javelin and Nlaws do directly hit the carousel and the loose ammo.
@@Heartrose7 It's not the autoloader itself, but having an autoloader means all the ammo is stored in the turret with the autoloader. Along with the crew, of course. :( When an ATGM penetrates the turret, usually from the top, it sets off one or more of the tank rounds, leading to a chain reaction - all the rounds go off and the turret blows off in a huge explosion. Modern Western tanks have the ammo stored in a "bustle" on the rear of the turret. It's behind a blast door that's opened only at the moment the human loader reaches for it to load the gun. 1950s Western tanks had ammo in the turret even with a human loader.
@@EpicThe112 I think that's what they are referring to, but the just say "autoloader", however as a commenter has pointed out in another of my comments, it's more likely where the autoloader ammo is stored that's the problem. As it's "stored under the turret no blow out panels" - Dominik Obora.
The issue with a lot of these threads on here is it's just a circle jerk about how vulnerable Russian vehicles are to the javelin. FYI every modern tank is also just as vulnerable to the javelin including the Abrams and it isn't like we are the only people with tandem charges or top attack warheads, we also hand them out like candy nowadays, so if china and russia didn't have them before they do now. That is why you dont give out weapon systems to non allies/corrupt states. Ukraine is a particularly egregious example of this. But great video, love the channel man.
@@NeuroScientician well not now of course. But give it to the Chinese for a decade and all bets are off. Kinda like their stealth fighter programs starting with pieces from a shot down Nighthawk.
@@NeuroScientician Doesn't need to be sophisticated as long as it will work. Also give a year or two and China will be rocking stuff like that if they aren't already. Same goes for needed components they will supply them to Russia.
@@sagatlike3393 no electronics or optics or software is being made in Russia, it's all from EU and the US. Everything that is not made of bent sheet metal is from EU. You cannot 'just start making it' for the same reason why Kenya cannot just start a space program. There is no history of production Russians can build on. China is about the same. No high-end stuff is made there, high-end components are brought from elsewhere and put together in China, but none of it originates there. That's why Russian army buys components from the US and not China. There are few cool videos of 'unboxing' of captured Russian drones, you can see clearly what they are made of. Same with missile warheads.
From a strategic point of view, this makes a lot more sense than the mostly tactical view you looked at. I'm thinking they figured that they might as well use the T-62 when they have them laying around with a bunch of ammo and spare parts for them. They will probably use them until the ammo/spare parts run out in order to alleviate the strain on the T-72 logistical situation, hence they can keep more vehicles operational at the same time and put more pressure on the enemy.
Greatly? It was more spacious, so good for crew and more mobile probably, but much bigger target. The armor or gun were no better, maybe it had better optics, electronics and so on, but that is better on all western tanks in general. Still the T-62 can probably destroy M60 from 2km or more.
LOL, no, are you kidding me? I would say latest M-60 maybe was even with T-62. I still would think with equal crew T-62 was more lethal. It had way better gun. Way.
@@tomk3732 Keep on telling yourself that, smart people know that the M60A3 TTS has a thermal sight, which is a massive agvantage and something crap like the T-62M does not have!
So I just want to say you could have made the same video and used the Panzer III. It is worse than the T-72 and the 50mm cannon could penetrate APCs and IFVs. This points to the corruption being much worse than people think.
You are assuming the T-62s are being brought out to replace *Russian* losses and not being given to militia units and other troops who would benefit from having any tank.
Drawing up as many tanks as possible, even to be used as disposable APC's isn't too bad of an idea. If they were just going to sit in storage, may as well get some use out of them.
So, the T-62 still has a place on the battlefield, so long as it is kept away from newer tanks like the T-72 and up? If you're a general, how do you manage to do that? Always keep T-62s at the rear of your tank army? Also, in that role, isn't the T-62 obsolete since there are other, newer kinds of armored vehicles that can do it even better?
The logistics of special military operations is that when it goes wrong you equip new units with whatever is available. It’s only in the movies where everyone dresses the same and uses the same equipment.
So the fact Russian military tech is going backwards rather than forward as time passes is a sign that modern Russia hasn’t the military complex to fight a modern war like they did in ww2.
in ww2 it was the ussr, which included many more countries....especially Ukraine, which took 10 out of 25 million casaulties of the ussr. Also the ussr was backed by the USA and didn't need to produce fency stuff like radios.... or food. All that stuff was provided,as the ussr focused on tank production and throwing man into the meatgrinder. At least the second thing didn't changed much. Russian elites never had an issue to sacrifice millions of their own people
@@riebenzahl-524 You: "Also the ussr was backed by the USA and didn't need to produce fency stuff like radios.... or food" Wikipedia: "Following the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, the Food and Agriculture Organization, as well as other observers of the food commodities markets, warned of a collapse in food supply and price increases". What is the problem? The US cannot compensate food supplies from Russia and Ukraine (were together in the USSR)? Most likely it's something else. It's just that your level of knowledge on this issue is not higher than 🐏 has. The volume of food supplies from the US was no higher than from Mongolia.
@@victorv7654 oh boy....🤦🏼♂️ The USSR was barely able to produce enough grain even after the war and even required supply from the US in the 50s, thanks to Stalins failed agriculture planning. But yeah, now everything is running according to Führer Putins plan 👍
Tell that to Mr. Kinzhal, Mr. Kaliber, Mr. Iskander, Mr. Avangard, Mr. Oniks, TOS, world class air defense complexes S-300, S-400, Pantsir, Buk, and fifth gen fighter SU-57 seeing combat in Ukraine. NATO is pissing in its pants.
The lesson we seemed to have learned in the Ukraine war - training matters (as well as moral) and the Russian seem to be suffering from a lack of both. I do wonder how the fighters feel when given the T-62, knowing Russia is scraping the bottom of the barrel to provide equipment.
The worse equipment is generally handed to the separatists, the DPR and LPR armed forces. Do not forget this is a two sided conflict too; there are also signs of the Ukrainian armed forces frequently using outdated equipment e.g. the Maxim machine-gun.
This war and the collapse of Afghanistan provide polar examples of the simple fact that despite all our technology, morale is still king of the battlefield.
